posted at 7:35 pm on September 21, 2012 by Allahpundit

Help me figure this out. Two days ago, the local ward boss in Chicago declared victory in getting Chick-fil-A to agree not to donate to groups opposed to legalizing gay marriage as a condition of granting them a permit to open a new franchise in his district. Quote:

As a result of the negotiations, Mr. Moreno received a letter signed by John E. Featherston Jr., a senior director of real estate for Chick-fil-A, stating, “The WinShape Foundations is now taking a much closer look at the organizations it considers helping, and in that process will remain true to its stated philosophy of not supporting organizations with political agendas.”

Mr. Moreno said in an interview Wednesday that he believes the company will stop “using money to fund groups that have antigay causes. They have committed in writing they will not do that.”

“For many months now, Chick-fil-A’s corporate giving has been mischaracterized,” executives said in today’s statement. “And while our sincere intent has been to remain out of this political and social debate, events from Chicago this week have once again resulted in questions around our giving. For that reason, we want to provide some context and clarity around who we are, what we believe and our priorities in relation to corporate giving.

“A part of our corporate commitment is to be responsible stewards of all that God has entrusted to us. Because of this commitment, Chick-fil-A’s giving heritage is focused on programs that educate youth, strengthen families and enrich marriages, and support communities. We will continue to focus our giving in those areas. Our intent is not to support political or social agendas.

“As we have stated, the Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators.”

Hmmm. Not clear where they stand? Then maybe today’s statement, posted on Mike Huckabee’s site, will set you straight:

“There continues to be erroneous implications in the media that Chick-fil-A changed our practices and priorities in order to obtain permission for a new restaurant in Chicago. That is incorrect. Chick-fil-A made no such concessions, and we remain true to who we are and who we have been.”

What wrinkle here am I missing? Note that in the letter to Moreno, the Chicago alderman, they never explicitly said they’d stop funding anti-SSM groups; they merely said that they’d “take a much closer look” at the groups they were donating to. Yesterday’s statement seems to draw a subtle distinction between groups with “political agendas” and programs that “strengthen families and enrich marriages,” as if there’s no overlap potentially between those concepts. Essentially, as I read it, they’re suggesting that their donations to groups opposed to legalizing gay marriage aren’t really “political” donations but merely funding for “stronger families.” Is that the loophole they had in mind when they wrote to Moreno, or is there some other nuance here that’s escaping me? And if they planned to thwart Moreno all along, why reveal the plan so soon when he can still block their new franchise? Better to either string him along for awhile until the new business is up and running or just sue him outright and demand that the city protect their First Amendment rights to support the causes they favor.

Or is there an entirely different loophole at work here, with Chick-fil-A now determined to continue steering money to anti-SSM groups but not through their own charity? Slate notes that CFA’s latest charity event includes registration forms that ask donors to send the money directly to the organization being sponsored rather than to Chick-fil-A’s charitable foundation. They’re still raising money for their cause, in other words, they’re just not acting as a direct financial conduit. Problem is, that contradicts today’s statement insisting that the company hasn’t changed its practices at all. What am I missing here?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

JetBoy is disgusting, low class trash the way he tries to discredit a critic of Allahpundit’s by suggesting that the critic is gay. Instead of engaging in anti-gay put-downs, why doesn’t Jet “Boy” address the substance of what Rebar is saying. Jumping to attack someone in a vicious, dishonest and personal way is what liberals do. How sick that JetBoy feels the need to sink to using these tactics.

Jet boy implying someone is a closet homosexual is really implying that a homosexual is too stupid to understand their own life and thus that homosexuals are mentally deranged in that they can’t even understand themselves.
Jet boy obviously hates homosexuals.

In this PC world/country, if one is to find the way to do what they think is right they must obfuscate, spin and be less than forthright. In other words, they must hide their honest opinions and intentions. Good job CFA; you have found a way to stand up for what you believe and still fool the fools!

Cripes almighty! The whole Chik-Fil-A saga is over and done with already. Their execs should be able to donate money to anyone they choose. If an individual or group decides to boycott the chain because of the CEO’s marriage views, go right ahead. You don’t have to dine there.

These liberal politicians are simply riling-up another special interest minority group and trying to make it seem they have your back. They do this to all minorities, and they fall for it every time.

I swear, the militant lefty gay orgs are doing far, far more damage to the gay marriage “equality” cause. They’re the ones in the news and reported on blogs, while gay dudes like me…and there are far more in this group than in the stereotypical flamboyant gay libs. Chances are, you’d never know by seeing us or talking with us. And the media ignores us.

It’s really no wonder why some of my righty comrades have that mental image of the stereotype…it’s all the nation sees of gays.

JetBoy on September 21, 2012 at 8:16 PM

I agree with you post. The problem is those that are driving the bus on the “gay” political agenda are people like Dan Savage. I have told you this before-if more homosexual activists were like you; I would be on your side.

BTW, I really like you, but the fact that you accuse a poster(even with your history with Rebar) of being a closet homosexual means you don’t have a fundamental understanding of those that are against gay marriage. You apparently believe the line that all of us are homophobes at heart.

Thanks for your answer. Actually, GG was the first place I checked. It’s one of my fave sites. I was just too tired last night to digest the misc points, heh. Though I did catch she recommends using no “ending preps” in resumes; some hiring people might not be as hep to the rules.

Oh…and I don’t consider myself a member of the grammar police–far from it. I only dispense grammar grace–jumping in to defend, not to condemn. :)
butterflies and puppies on September 22, 2012 at 1:29 AM

I didn’t mean the term as a pejorative in this case – maybe I should have called for a grammar “judge” instead.
:D

So what? You seem to suggest that private money being donated to anti-gay organizations under the guise of “supporting family values” is a somehow a loophole.

1) You’ve made a strawman argument. Chick-fil-A’s position on who they support has been clear since day one. Some jackass politician from Chicago, of all places, basically confesses to extortion by saying they can have their permit now that they have promised to support, with private money, an organization said jackass doesn’t like. Just come out and say it…Chick-fil-A flip-flopped, if you can.

I don’t think anyone who’s been here any length of time, would deny that AP is a advocate for homosexual marriage, DADT repeal, or any other item of their agenda. He’s been a tireless advocate for a long time, he pretty much admitted same when he was despondent over the defeat of same sex marriage in North Carolina.

That’s not hate, it’s the simple truth.

Rebar on September 22, 2012 at 12:57 AM

On this particular issue, AP is a progressive. By which I mean, he thinks a) societal values are changing b) the new values are better, and c) he’s on the right side of history

I’d dispute all three claims, especially the second and third. I see a backlash coming.

He would probably dispute being described as a progressive in any way, but he’s virtually indistinguishable from a progressive on this issue.